| integer on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 00:13:41 +0200 (CEST) |
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
| [Nettime-bold] (no subject) |
>Declan, Ronda:
Mark Stahlman - pardon ma!z = ur pop.pop teor!e = ultra lo.tek + !nkomezt!bl
= zugezt!e du = konzult 01 publ!k l!brar! + edukat zelv +?
= bkom!ng 01 obeze pop kultr bagatela != ekuat 01 !ntel!gensz.
= ronda@ais.org > !ntel!gent dzn u.
= declan@wired.com = az !ntel!gent az u ov korsz.
aftr all he = 01 lo.tekk male zerf juzt l!ke u.
am!t!ez.nn.
eusocial.com -> superb source for male fascist antibodies.
pre.konssept!Øn
meeTz ver!f1kat!Øn.
-
Netochka Nezvanova
f3.MASCHIN3NKUNST
@www.eusocial.com
17.hzV.tRL.478
e
|
| +----------
| | <
\\----------------+ | n2t
| >
e
>C'mon now . . . you're killin' me . . .
>
>What amazes me is that anyone could think that the "government" and the
>"market" are really separate at all . . . in any instrumental way when it
>comes to "strategic" technologies . . . like the Internet.
>
>All of this endless thrashing of "Taste Better" vs. "Less Filling" on nettime
>is getting truly hilarious.
>
>It was November 1998 when it became the official posture of the United States
>"government" that the FOUR "battlegrounds" were AIR, GROUND, SEA and
>CYBERSPACE . . . and this was after a 30+ year "Revolution in Military
>Affairs" which has totally recast what was described in 1959 by Eisenhower as
>the "Military Industrial Complex" . . . just at the moment that Daniel Bell
>was introducing the term "Post-Industrial" at the Salzburg Seminar in
>Austria, informing the informed that the "industrial" was no longer driving
>things. Military or otherwise.
>
>Doesn't anyone read their Toffler? Or, their Boulding? "War and Anti-War."
><g>
>
>It's long been the "Military Information Complex" and the intimate
>association between "government" and the "market" (when it comes to
>"strategic" technologies, like the Internet) is the principle reason for the
>existence of the "Dulles Corridor" . . . not that incredible engineering
>school at Georgetown. (And, why was General Al "I'm in Control Here" Haig on
>the board of AOL for all those years . . . anyway?)
>
>Who do you think brought the suit against Microsoft? The "market"? The DoJ?
> The FCC? Or, the Pentagon?
>
>Those technologies which are essential to the "national interest" are ALWAYS
>under the control of the "government" . . . whose job it is to safeguard the
>"national interest." Today, that means the Internet. (Pay attention to Dave
>Farber when he speaks about "security matters" . . . or, if you prefer, stay
>confused . . .)
>
>When DoJ Anti-Trust head Joel Klein admonished the Supreme Court (as quoted
>on page A1 of today's NYTimes) that the Microsoft case was directly a concern
>of the "national interest," he wasn't speaking about market-share in the
>browser "market," fer crissakes. When Janet Reno used the term "revolution"
>FIVE times in her speech launching the Microsoft suit, she wasn't speaking
>about a song by the Beatles, fer double-crissakes.
>
>The "government" IS the "market" -- as prime-customer, as standard-setter, as
>"classified-briefer," as revolving-door employer, as research-granter and as
>HAMMER-when-you-ignore-them -- in all cases of technologies which are
>considered "strategic" and in the "national interest."
>
>Like super-computers. Or, lasers. Or, space. Or, energy. Or, the Internet.
>
>Face it . . . or it will one day be in your face . . . just ask Bill Gates .
>. .
>
>Best,
>
>Mark Stahlman
_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold